I'm sure I have the correct winners but the actual scores of the two Hertfordshire matches are a bit "iffy"

Incidentally why can't we have penalty shoot-outs instead of board count? We might have beaten Hampshire on that.

I can vouch that the first three are correct, much as it pains me about the Minor result.

My game didn't quite get to the time control but it wasn't explained (I think) at the start how/when the extra 30 minutes would be added. Having seen the board next to me past move 40 and still having about the same time on the clock as my own board, I inferred that it would be added when one clock expired the first two hours.

This is rather a secondary question about digital clocks as to whether to use the move counter because it requires the players to press the clock after every move (and only then). I am sure I have seen this advanced as an argument not to use digital clocks because of confusion that can arise (and hence arguments).

If by "penalty shoot-out" you mean a rapidplay play-off, that does require players who agree a draw within the first hour to potentially hang around for ages when they could make an early getaway. One year in the National Club Championship (I think, again) one match started with four draws but fortunately the final one was decisive, avoiding any need for a replay. The National Schools competition when I played in it required a replay if all the boards were drawn. They have since introduced the colour tie break, that I see also appears in the county championship rules this year; that is, if game points, board count and bottom board elimination fail to produce a result (which happens if and only if every board is drawn), the team with black on board 1 is the winner.

Richard Thursby wrote:My game didn't quite get to the time control but it wasn't explained (I think) at the start how/when the extra 30 minutes would be added. Having seen the board next to me past move 40 and still having about the same time on the clock as my own board, I inferred that it would be added when one clock expired the first two hours.

This is rather a secondary question about digital clocks as to whether to use the move counter because it requires the players to press the clock after every move (and only then). I am sure I have seen this advanced as an argument not to use digital clocks because of confusion that can arise (and hence arguments).

According to the rules:

6.2a. When using a chess clock, each player must make a minimum number of moves or all moves in an allotted period of time and/or may be allocated an additional amount of time with each move. All these must be specified in advance.

6.3. Immediately after a flag falls, the requirements of article 6.2 a. must be checked.

Say the time control is 40 moves in 2 hours. You reach the time control at 2 hours, not 40 moves (hence time control). So, only then should the time be added, i.e. if you've made more than 40 moves. The digital clock is therefore doing exactly what it's supposed to be doing. Digital clocks do not need a move counter, either you're writing your game down, or the arbiter is writing it down for you in a time scramble. So the arbiter knows how many moves have been made.

This is a poor argument against the use of digital clocks, because it's actually following the rules! When people in congresses start picking up clocks and rewinding them after they've made the right number of moves, they shouldn't be. In practice, it makes no difference. But that's why the clock is as it is.

I'm sure I have the correct winners but the actual scores of the two Hertfordshire matches are a bit "iffy"

Incidentally why can't we have penalty shoot-outs instead of board count? We might have beaten Hampshire on that.

I can vouch that the first three are correct, much as it pains me about the Minor result.

If by "penalty shoot-out" you mean a rapidplay play-off, that does require players who agree a draw within the first hour to potentially hang around for ages when they could make an early getaway.

No I actually meant that each team nominated five players who would take part in penalties against a goalkeeper selected by the opposition from their team members. As Moat College has outdoor football facilities, it would be an interesting (but totally implausible) way of deciding a 8-8 draw. It seems eminently more sensible than chess-boxing. All I've heard from the pundits/commentators at the World Cup is "the match is like a game of chess" or similar so we could actually show that chess is like a game of football!

Sorry, I really should know the rules of chess better than I do. I always get satisfaction from pointing out when people haven't followed Rule 2.1 when setting up the board. I admit to regularly breaking rule C.9 on recording pawn captures because I only record the file of departure and file of arrival, unless it is ambiguous, and don't write e.p. (or even ep) when a capture is en passant.

Alex Holowczak wrote:This is a poor argument against the use of digital clocks

I agree, but not for that reason. Many congress entry forms I have seen carry statements like "The time control is x moves in y minutes followed by a z minute quickplay finish. After black's xth move the clocks are turned back z minutes and all moves completed in the remaining time."

Neil Graham wrote:No I actually meant that each team nominated five players who would take part in penalties against a goalkeeper selected by the opposition from their team members. As Moat College has outdoor football facilities, it would be an interesting (but totally implausible) way of deciding a 8-8 draw. It seems eminently more sensible than chess-boxing. All I've heard from the pundits/commentators at the World Cup is "the match is like a game of chess" or similar so we could actually show that chess is like a game of football!

That still means players have to hang around when they could otherwise go home. If it goes to sudden death you would need more than five. Also, I wouldn't like to put money on a team consisting of mostly juniors prevailing against a team of middle-aged men in a penalty shoot-out.

The aforementioned Under 100 who wasn't sure where the venue was this morning was quite annoyed. He managed to draw to someone who was estimated at 99 (how convenient), but who said that he "will be graded over 130 next season".

Thankfully he wasn't cleared to play be me - and wouldn't have been (unless they lie of course) as I get all of a players results to date before making a decision. This meant that I turned down at least 30% of all requests for permission to play, including at least 3 where they had been allowed to play in their Union stages.

I think they should still lose the penalty points, even though it will not change the scoreline, its just so that in years to come people will remember the crime did not go unpunished. Of course, one of the warwickshire players did not help matters by driving very close to the venue, getting lost on the ring roads and then phoning up to say that he had enough of trying to find it and was going home.

Ian Thompson wrote:I'm guessing from your location that you play in the Surrey League. That league is, I hope, unique in allowing players to insist on the use of a clock made in 19th Century in preference to a modern digital clock.

its just so that in years to come people will remember the crime did not go unpunished.

That sounds a little melodramatic. I have no first hand knowledge of the Essex player concerned: however, the position is absolutely clear cut under the rules. Either the person who is currently acting as the County Championship controller has given permission for that ungraded player to play and has not subsequently withdrawn that permission, in which case the player is eligible, or that condition is not satisfied in which case the player is ineligible. The fact that somebody may diasagree with the controller's decision is irrelevant. I speak from experience. In June 2006 the Essex U175 team lost on board count to Sussex in the semi-final, with a Sussex player without a published grade (but shown as "E162" on the score sheet) winning on board 9. I had grave doubts about the strength of this player, but the controller ruled him eligible and that was the end of the matter. When the grading list was published the next month, the player was graded at 181.